I really don't want this to become another AP vs Haw thread. I'm more interested in understanding the current debate between the ITHA and AP as it relates to the stall rent language for non starters in AP's stall application form. As I understand it, a rent MAY be charged for any AP stall where the occupant does not start at least once in 30 days. As a fan and bettor I think that makes sense to insure that the horses on the grounds run. What is so difficult about once in 30 days? What say you?

I really don't want this to become another AP vs Haw thread. I'm more interested in understanding the current debate between the ITHA and AP as it relates to the stall rent language for non starters in AP's stall application form. As I understand it, a rent MAY be charged for any AP stall where the occupant does not start at least once in 30 days. As a fan and bettor I think that makes sense to insure that the horses on the grounds run. What is so difficult about once in 30 days? What say you?

- 2 y.o. that's not ready to run- grass horse that never gets in- horse that's coming off an injury or long layoff and isn't ready to run

Charging anyone stall rent at any track DURING THE LIVE MEET is very uncommon. I can think of zero, but who knows. Can anyone here name a track that charges stall rent during their live meet?

Darley stabled 2 yr olds at Arlington one summer and hardly ran any horses, just worked them out. They even won the Barn of the Month award one month. I doubt if they paid any rent. It sure looked good to have them stabled there though. I guess that's the difference between them and Illinois horses.

All sides must accept times are changing. Just because something was or wasn't done in the past, doesn't make it right or wrong forever. There was a time that a racetrack would get 20-25 cents of every dollar wagered on their races. Those days are long gone. They might pick up some of that slack from simulcast, but not enough to make it like it used to be. Race tracks, other sports team, as well as most every business today must monetize ALL of their assets.

I think it unreasonable to expect a horse stabled at AP to run once a month. But if two year olds are excluded, is it unreasonable for a race track to expect a trainer using their facilities to house and train a horse to run once or twice over the course of a 5 month meet? Isn't that an easy deal to cut? How is that unreasonable? If its against IRB rules, then change the rules.

Bill Curtis told us all in the movie "The Anchorman", the times they are a changing. We adapt or we die.

All sides must accept times are changing. Just because something was or wasn't done in the past, doesn't make it right or wrong forever. There was a time that a racetrack would get 20-25 cents of every dollar wagered on their races. Those days are long gone. They might pick up some of that slack from simulcast, but not enough to make it like it used to be. Race tracks, other sports team, as well as most every business today must monetize ALL of their assets.

How about if owners start charging tracks an appearance fee for their horses? That sounds reasonable to me. Purse money no longer gets as much from a dollar bet, either ... and largely due to the actions of racetracks with their OTBs and ADWs.

Quote

I think it unreasonable to expect a horse stabled at AP to run once a month. But if two year olds are excluded, is it unreasonable for a race track to expect a trainer using their facilities to house and train a horse to run once or twice over the course of a 5 month meet? Isn't that an easy deal to cut? How is that unreasonable?

It's unreasonable because it reads "may". There are no rules and guidelines. It's something they can enforce as a weapon.

Quote

If its against IRB rules, then change the rules.

What's against the rules is adding stall fee clause AFTER they've already submitted, and got approved, their dates request based on the information they supplied the IRB at the time. That did not include stall fees.

Aren't you glad I give you multiple cut and paste opportunities? Read my post again, I was speaking in generalities, that it is not unreasonable for a race track to expect that the horses stabled at their track run there with some exceptions, of course.

I agree that it can't be this meet, and it has to set objective measurable standards. "May" does not meet that criteria.

As for appearance fees, most tracks do that now anyway. Every horse's race expense is covered when they run.

Simple solution.....just give the usual deadbeats, less or no stalls. If you have a guy with 20 stalls and runs 3-4 horses a month out of town, mountaineer, KY....that's a problem. Don't punish the guys who have been running consistently in IL, punish the guys who train here but ship to run.

Would you prefer I addressed all your different points in one big blob of text? Would it make it easier to understand?

Quote

Read my post again, I was speaking in generalities, that it is not unreasonable for a race track to expect that the horses stabled at their track run there with some exceptions, of course.

I was speaking in generalities, just like you. Didn't mention a track name once. And specifically what I was talking about was your argument in favor of "monetizing their assets".

Quote

As for appearance fees, most tracks do that now anyway. Every horse's race expense is covered when they run.

Some tracks actually pay it out of their own pocket. Then there are others that simply take it out of the purse account by paying the lower end finishers less and paying some small fee down to last, a simple reshuffling of money that already belongs to the horsemen. Which model fits the track under discussion, the one that wants to charge stall rent?

What I'm talking about is the tracks paying out of their own pocket, like they're asking horsemen to do.

Simple solution.....just give the usual deadbeats, less or no stalls. If you have a guy with 20 stalls and runs 3-4 horses a month out of town, mountaineer, KY....that's a problem. Don't punish the guys who have been running consistently in IL, punish the guys who train here but ship to run.

Always kind of slap in the face when Duchossois sends one of his nice babies off to run at Saratoga, isn't it.

Not being a horse owner, my post was intended to understand why one race a month is so difficult to achieve. Again, I'm coming at this as a bettor who prefers larger fields. Setting aside two year olds, are the 3 and up older horses that fragile that they can't run once a month?

Not being a horse owner, my post was intended to understand why one race a month is so difficult to achieve. Again, I'm coming at this as a bettor who prefers larger fields. Setting aside two year olds, are the 3 and up older horses that fragile that they can't run once a month?

Again, turf horses that can't get in or get rained off, older horses coming back off injury or layoff, and I'm sure others can provide other cases.

Every horse gets his expenses paid? You mean every jockey gets his expenses paid. You obviously have no idea what it takes to lead a horse to the paddock, and I don't mean paying a groom to walk them there.

Every horse gets his expenses paid? You mean every jockey gets his expenses paid. You obviously have no idea what it takes to lead a horse to the paddock, and I don't mean paying a groom to walk them there.

Every horse gets his expenses paid? You mean every jockey gets his expenses paid. You obviously have no idea what it takes to lead a horse to the paddock, and I don't mean paying a groom to walk them there.

Are you an Arlington employee?

Because he speaks highly of Arlington you come after him?

The guy is a new owner in the game and you being a trainer go nuts about him making a mistake. And you wonder why people just give up on the game.

And he isn't technically wrong. You get an appearance fee for running 6 - down, as you know, which 'helps' with the race day expense. (also helps with keeping the horseman's bookkeeper from having to chase money also)

For all the hoorah about these stall fees, they're not the real issue. Remember that even before this kerfluffle came up Arlington was going on about some unnamed unresolved issue that was allegedly going to cost owners and Arlington $hundreds of thousands if the ITHA had its way.

A couple of items, though:

Maybe I was wrong in saying the issue was AP Added the stalls language after the dates hearing. Arlington claims the language was in its 2012 dates application all along. See "just the facts" (according to Arlington) for the date of Feb 9:

However, here's another bit of news from Ray Paulick and Mark Laino that cites Illinois code that says stall fees are clearly against the rules, so what the heck is AP doing putting it in there anyhow?

"Marc Laino, executive director of the Illinois Racing Board, said Arlington “may be in violation” of Illinois racing law, specifically Section 1424.50, paragraph D(2), which reads: “No stall allocation shall be conditioned upon the payment, transfer or delivery to the racing secretary, or to any other person designated by him, of any money, property or other thing of value or upon the applicant's promise to make such payment, transfer or delivery.”

“The rule prohibits stall rental, clearly,” said Laino. “If there is any modification, it has to come before the board for approval, and that hasn’t taken place.”

I guess AP would say it was in the 2012 app and no one complained, so it's approved?

And finally, a comment on farquark's question that began this as well as beobob's various pro-AP arguments: It is NOT just about running every 30 days. It's also about "or on a horse which runs at another racetrack in a race and condition that Arlington offers and runs." In other words, if you're training a horse and think it's real good and ship it off to Churchill or somewhere to try and break its maiden for that bigger pot, AP can charge you a stall rent, because they offer MSW at AP, too. Well, they MAY, because they don't want to charge Mr. D that stall fee when when does the very same thing like he often does, but they MAY charge the stall rent to someone they don't like.

- 2 y.o. that's not ready to run- grass horse that never gets in- horse that's coming off an injury or long layoff and isn't ready to run

Charging anyone stall rent at any track DURING THE LIVE MEET is very uncommon. I can think of zero, but who knows. Can anyone here name a track that charges stall rent during their live meet?

Spot on, Terry.....I can't count the number of times we couldn't enter because a race for one of our horses didn't fill or go off resulting in a 6-8 week layoff. It wasn't our fault, so why should we be penalized?

And YES...we do OWN the product. Too bad AP can't figure that out. Certainly CDI is doing their best to make the track even more irrelevant for Illinois horsemen.

CDI wants to transition costs to the horsemen for every aspect of live racing. Last year it was manure removal. Earlier this year it was to keep the training track open ($80,000 I think I heard). Stall rent. On top of the $50,000 + per day recapture out of the purse account. They will throw a stack of these types demands at us during contract negotiations, and as they X them off they will say they are doing all the sacrificing.

CDI wants to transition costs to the horsemen for every aspect of live racing. Last year it was manure removal. Earlier this year it was to keep the training track open ($80,000 I think I heard). Stall rent. On top of the $50,000 + per day recapture out of the purse account. They will throw a stack of these types demands at us during contract negotiations, and as they X them off they will say they are doing all the sacrificing.

I think this year they're dumping half the salary of the horsemen's bookkeeper on the horsemen, too, aren't they?

The horsemen should ask for a cut of the admissions and concessions. After all, AP isn't going to draw much of a crowd to watch tractors and water trucks slowly go around the racetrack.

Always kind of slap in the face when Duchossois sends one of his nice babies off to run at Saratoga, isn't it.

When has that happened Terry? He runs 90% of his stock in Illinois unless Ron MacaNally has stuck it to Dick and purchase some European to run in California? If he has its very rare and they are probably prefer the dirt surface or they are a high callib er stake horse.

Every horse gets his expenses paid? You mean every jockey gets his expenses paid. You obviously have no idea what it takes to lead a horse to the paddock, and I don't mean paying a groom to walk them there.

Sorry, I should have said jockey fee. I am aware of the cost to get to the paddock and whatever the vet might bill pre- or post race. My point, however badly I misstated it, is that the jockey fees are covered when we run. If they weren't, that would be $$$ out of our pocket.

No, although I can understand why you assume that I am. I say positive things about AP, and because that is so rare on this board, I can see how it might seem I was a company shill. On this stall issue, I think AP is dead wrong to sneak it in late in the game. I think the wording is subjective and could lead to abuse. I think it is unreasonable to require a horse run once a month. I said as much in a post above. Oh, and I don't like the poly. Is that pro AP? What must make me different at BTW is that I don't automatically dismiss anything that AP proposes as something to destroy the livelihood of Illinois horsemen. I do not think it is unreasonable to place some reasonable racing requirements on trainers and owners using AP's facilities. The key word being reasonable. The fact that it has never been done that way doesn't fly with a newer owner such as myself. If Illinois racing is to survive, we are going to have to do many things differently than we have in the past.

I think it is possible to have a preference without hating the other. I am a Cub fan, but I don't hate the White Sox and want them to win unless it's bad for the Cubs. I prefer AP because I grew up there and it's 5 minutes from my house, but I don't hate HAW and I believe a healthy HAW is essential for Illinois horsemen. One of our horses hated AP as much as some on this board and we quit trying to run her there, she loved HAW and I'm glad it was a viable option for us.

What I see as potentially dangerous is if we allow whatever our bias or preference is to cloud our judgement about what is best for Illinois racing. If what is best for the future viability of Illinois racing is what is also good for AP or bad for HAW, must it be opposed? As I have posted previously, I've only been involved as an owner since 2009 so I don't have the Mr D baggage that many of you have. But because I'm new, in my mind whatever Mr D did in 1984 or 1994 or 2004 doesn't factor in anything that is proposed today. I don't care how much money Mr D has. I don't care how much he'll make. If what is best for Illinois racing also makes Mr D more money, I don't care.

So here is my secret agenda, and what drives the thought process of most of my posts: I want my grand kids to have the opportunity I've had in Illinois racing. I started going to AP in 1970, 39 years later I became an owner. We had our first winner the day our first grandchild was born. We all sat in my daughter's hospital room watching the race on my laptop and nurses had to come in to tell us to keep it down. I want that for them. So I am pro anything that improves the viability of Illinois racing.

What is fairly common among once successful businesses that fail is that they refuse to adapt to a changing market environment. To a new guy like me, I don't care what's been done in the past. I can appreciate what has been done and all the hard work that got us to where we are today, but what is best for 2015 and beyond is what I'm interested in. The guy who invented quartz watch technology took it to the Swiss watchmakers first. They sent him away because they could not foresee a world where people would want a battery powered watch. He took his invention to Japan, and Seiko was born.

It should not come as any surprise that AP would want to transfer as much of their backside expense to us, or that they are looking to monetize any asset they feel they can. If HAW was holding a stronger hand they probably would try to as well. We have the product, they have the facility. Both sides will have reasonable and unreasonable demands, and I suppose that people might have different definitions of what is reasonable. In this particular stall debate I think that AP's request is unreasonable, but I don't think that the principle behind it is unreasonable. If we have gotten to the place where neither side is willing to throw the other side a bone and every change requested is deemed unreasonable, we are dead.

However, here's another bit of news from Ray Paulick and Mark Laino that cites Illinois code that says stall fees are clearly against the rules, so what the heck is AP doing putting it in there anyhow?

"Marc Laino, executive director of the Illinois Racing Board, said Arlington “may be in violation” of Illinois racing law, specifically Section 1424.50, paragraph D(2), which reads: “No stall allocation shall be conditioned upon the payment, transfer or delivery to the racing secretary, or to any other person designated by him, of any money, property or other thing of value or upon the applicant's promise to make such payment, transfer or delivery.”

“The rule prohibits stall rental, clearly,” said Laino. “If there is any modification, it has to come before the board for approval, and that hasn’t taken place.”

CDI wants to transition costs to the horsemen for every aspect of live racing...They will throw a stack of these types demands at us during contract negotiations, and as they X them off they will say they are doing all the sacrificing.

Isn't that the way negotiating has been done since it was first introduced by Stanley Negotiate in 6527 BC? I expect each side to be ruthless in their negotiations, but with the ruthlessness tempered by the realization that both sides must retain the ability to be profitable.